Ethereum is a computer system that helps people create and use apps without needing a boss. But sometimes bad guys try to steal money or break these apps. In May, they tried to do this 9 times on Ethereum, more than any other system. This caused Ethereum to lose a lot of money. BNB Chain was the second most targeted. Even though there were fewer attacks overall in May than before, Ethereum still lost a lot. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Ethereum is under constant attack and cannot defend itself, which is not true. While it is true that Ethereum faced the most individual attacks in May, this does not necessarily mean it was the most targeted blockchain by hackers and fraudsters. There could be other factors at play, such as its popularity, market share, or complexity.
2. The article uses vague terms like "hackers" and "fraudsters" without specifying who they are, what their motives are, or how they operate. This creates a sense of mystery and AIger around Ethereum, which may not be justified by the facts. A more accurate and informative term would be "malicious actors".
3. The article focuses on the losses caused by attacks on Ethereum, but does not provide any context or comparison to other blockchains. How do these losses stack up against the total value locked in Ethereum? How do they compare to the losses suffered by other chains, such as BNB Chain, Solana, or Polkadot? Without this information, it is hard to judge how serious the problem is and whether Ethereum is uniquely vulnerable.
4. The article mentions a specific incident involving Gala Games, but does not explain how it happened, what was the impact, or what were the consequences. This leaves readers with unanswered questions and incomplete information. A more responsible journalism would require more details and sources to back up such claims.
5. The article ends on a positive note, stating that losses in May declined 28% month-over-month and 20% compared to the same period in 2023. However, this does not negate or balance out the negative impression created by the previous paragraphs. It seems like an afterthought, rather than a well-reasoned conclusion.